October 20, 2005
-
The Mass is a Lie
Andrew C. Bain
October 21, 2005. Sydney, Australia.
The Catechism of the Roman church says that –
…the bread and wine that, by the words of Christ and the invocation of the Holy Spirit, become Christ’s Body and Blood. (Article III, part 3, section 1333).
The Breaking of Bread, because Jesus used this rite, part of a Jewish meat when as master of the table he blessed and distributed the bread, (Article III, part 2, section 1329)
…the Eucharist is also a sacrifice (section 1365) … In the Eucharist Christ gives us the very body which he gave up for us on the cross, the very blood which he poured out (section 1365) … the Eucharist is offered through the priests’ hands (section 1369)
At the Last Supper, on the night he was betrayed, our Savior instituted the Eucharistic sacrifice of his Body and Blood. This he did in order to perpetuate the sacrifice of the cross throughout the ages until he should come again (section 1323)
Are we to bow down with the Romanists and worship bread? Does the bread and wine “actually become Christ’s body and blood” (Roman Church Catechism, Section 1333) ?
To answer this question, have a look at Revelation 1:20 to start with…
“the seven stars are angels of the seven assemblies” (Rev 1:20)
Did Christ just say that stars have turned into churches? Of course not. He’s saying that “the seven stars” REPRESENT “angels of the seven assemblies.” You can also see God interpreting His own Word this way in Genesis 9. Here, God caused a rainbow to appear in the sky and told Noah, “I have established My covenant with you” (Genesis 9:11). Clearly, God is NOT saying the rainbow turned into a covenant. Instead, the rainbow was a SIGN, a REMINDER or TOKEN of God’s promise. “This is the sign of the covenant which I am about to make between Me and you … I have set My bow in the cloud, and it shall be a sign of a covenant.” (Gen 9:12,13). With this in mind, now read Matthew 26.
“Take eat; this is My body.” (v26)
“…taking the cup, [he said], … For this is My blood.”(v27-28)
Remember how we considered other Scripture? The rainbow was a SIGN and the seven stars were a REPRESENTATION. Likewise, the bread and wine are merely a MEMORIAL. The meaning of Christ’s words are, “Take eat; this…” represents “…My body”. Or to use His own original phrase, “…as often as you drink, do this in REMEMBRANCE of Me.” (1 Cor 11:25)
Perhaps you are a Protestant, and you claim to agree with this interpretation of the Lord’s Supper. You say, “amen, it’s only a memorial.” Well, let’s go further into the truth, and be far from error. The Roman Catholic Catechism also teaches (along with Reformed Confessions of Faith!!) that Christ, “blessed … the bread” (Section 1329). But, Christ NEVER blessed or “consecrated” the bread. In Matthew 26:26-27 we read that Christ began “taking the bread and blessing it … and taking the cup, and giving thanks“. Notice that the word “it” in the phrase “blessing it“, is in italics. Some people try to say that Christ “blessed it” (the bread). But the word “it” is not in the Greek (that’s why it’s in italics in the LITV). In fact, the phrase could just as well be translated “[Christ began] taking the bread and giving thanks”. You might see what I mean when you look at the similarity between the two Greek words — eulogeO and eucharisteO. Here they are in their context, ”[Christ began] taking the bread and blessing [eulogeO] … and taking the cup, and giving thanks [eucharisteO]“. Who was Christ giving thanks to? Well, could the Creator of the universe thank or bless the bread he created? Of course not. He was thanking the Father.
Yet, week after week Catholic ”priests” lift the bread high and worship it. They think the bread they are using is holy, and it’s well known their bread (or wafers) are specially produced for Mass. But, this is exactly the OPPOSITE to the actions of Christ. “[T]he Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread…” (1 Cor 11:23) Christ just “took bread”. No mention about any special preparation. There’s no reason given for preparing ”holy” bread ! Unless, of course, you follow the traditions of men, and not Christ.
So, where does the gospel fit into all this? Well, Catholics have PERVERTED justification by Christ by 1) making “priests” into mediators, and 2) denying that Christ’s sacrifice was only to happen ONCE (i.e. it was FINISHED on the cross). This completely destroys the truth of one-time justification by the imputation of Christ’s righteousness into an elect sinner’s account. And that’s why Catholics need to have a viaticum. The viaticum is a last-minute private Mass on your death bed, to give you a “passport” to heaven (or perhaps purgatory?). This is where the Catholic doctrine of justification by works can be CLEARLY seen. Till their very last breath, they are trusting in their priests, bread and church to save them, not the IMPUTED RIGHTEOUSNESS AND ATONING BLOOD OF JESUS CHRIST ALONE.
Further reading —
Christ is Not Revealed in the Bread and Wine
Pelagianism, Roman Catholicism and Arminianism Considered
Assurance of Salvation
Why Most Protestants are Not Saved
Or, if you found this article helpful, CLICK HERE to email it to a friend
Comments (19)
the bread is not the Body of Christ until it is consecrated–until then, it is just bread. we produce our own bread because, like the Jewish Passover, unleavened bread is to be used, and it is a bit hard to go to the store and pick some up before Mass. before consecration is is no more holy than a loaf of sara lee.
half facts are dangerous man.
Richard, this is not a half fact. Interestingly, I just did some more research, and read that Catholic ”priests” say a preparatory pray to set the bread apart. This is before the eucharistic prayer (i.e. the one meant to transform the bread into Christ’s body.)
“In anticipation of its change into the body of the victim of the sacrifice that the liturgy makes sacramentally present, it is called a host, from the Latin word “hostia”, meaning “victim”. This preparatory part of the Liturgy of the Eucharist concludes with a variable prayer over the bread and wine thus set apart” http://www.answers.com/topic/mass-1
My point was this — where do we see Christ praying two sets of prayers at the Supper (let alone praying TO the bread!! — I believe He is praying to the Father)? This is just another example of your Synagogue of Satan introducing the DOCTRINES OF DEVILS.
Half facts are dangerous indeed!!
Andrew Bain
Maybe my last comment wasn’t clear enough.
What I was trying to point out is this — the Roman Catholic priest first prays a “preparatory prayer” to set the bread apart. Funnily enough, a lot of Protestant “pastors” do this too. But this is FALSE. Since Christ, ALL distinctions of food are gone. One piece of bread at the baker is EQUALLY clean to the bread in the mouth of a Christian on the Lord’s Supper. NO food is to be set apart. The ceremonial laws have GONE.
Andrew Bain
were you baptized? if so, then congratualtions–you have been set apart for God. the preparatory prayer does nothing more than affirm that from that point on, this specific bread will be used for a specific purpose.
i can tell you are hard-set in your ways…vehemently so, in fact. i’m not going to indulge you in a frivilous debate that will clearly accomplish nothing, nor i am i going to tolerate, in the slightest, persons who refer to the ONLY Church that can actually trace its heritage back to the apostles and to Christ as a “Synagogue of Satan.” of course, i am quite confident you received a divine mandate from God at some point in time, commissioning you to go out to the world and argue with anyone and anything that you even begin to imagine to be in error. fine. you have a great time saving the world. personally, i subscribe to a religion that already has a Savior, and we don’t need any more of you.
Richard: Well said.
Andrew: I replied to your comments on my blog.
“NO food is to be set apart.”
Not a single Protestant confession would back that statement up. Not the Westminster, not the Second Helvetic, not the Belgic, none of them. Do you even have a confessional standard which summarises your beliefs? Does it bother you at all that nobody in the history of the church has ever agreed with you?
Wherefore, the water, bread, and wine, according to their nature and apart from the divine institution and sacred use, are only that which they are called and we experience. But when the Word of God is added to them, together with invocation of the divine name, and the renewing of their first institution and sanctification, then these signs are consecrated, and shown to be sanctified by Christ. (Second Helvetic Confession VIII:viii)
Neither do we approve of the doctrine of those who speak of the sacraments just as common signs, not sanctified and effectual. (Second Helvetic Confession VIII:x)
Christ hath appointed the ministers if His Word, in the administration of this sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, to set apart the bread and wine from common use, by the word of institution, thanksgiving, and prayer. (Westminster Larger Catechism Q. clxix)
The Lord Jesus has, in this ordinance, appointed His ministers to declare His word of institution to the people, to pray, and bless the elements of bread and wine, and thereby to set them apart from a common to an holy use. (Westminster Confession of Faith XXIX:iii)
Just by using the term “ceremonial laws” you are accepting categories defined by St. Thomas Aquinas, an unregenerate atheist in your book. I thought you were going to use Scripture alone. Oh, well. I give you an A for effort. You are truly in a class all by your lonesome self. Must be fun!
Dave,
I certainly do NOT stand by anyone in history who calls themselves a “Reverend” or thinks they are an “Ambassador” to “offer Christ”. I do NOT stand with those who over the past 2000 years have set themselves up in the seat of God, and elevated themselves to a status of “clergy” above the “laity”.
History proves nothing. God’s Word decides ALL. “You stand by faith”, God tells me. “To the Law and the testimony, if they speak not according to the Word, it is because their is NO LIGHT IN THEM”.
And if by coincidence my beliefs are similiar to Thomas Aquinas regarding the Law, then to me it just goes to show that the light has shined in history. But since Aquinas hated Justification by Christ, “the darkness comprehended it not.” So Aquinas must have parroted some of the truth, without realising it.
the Spirit of God loves for people to argue over this stuff….espescially people who both claim to have Christ. He loves to see His Church, His Body split over these kinds of issues. andrew, why bother? i mean if you truley believed these people are lost and unsaved, so what? why bring it up to arguement?
Ryan, you appeal to the Spirit of God?? You want me to lay down the fight against false gospels — and appeal to the Scripture for support on such a move?? The issues I have raised are ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIALS OF THE GOSPEL.
And then you ask why I should bother corresponding with Catholics if I think they are unregenerate.
Well, maybe because THE GOSPEL IS THE POWER OF GOD UNTO SALVATION (Rom 1:18).
“God’s Word decides ALL.”
And you are the infallible interpreter thereof?
Wow. Your site reminds me why I am no longer a Protestant.
You worship a god that let his church remain in the bondage of heresy for 1,500+ years. You worship a false god.
The Lord Jesus Christ, whose Body is one, have mercy on you.
well, if they are unregenerate, and if they heed your words and quit believing the bread is holy, does that suddenly make them less unregenerate. maybe when dealing with people you believe are unregenerate you should help them see how to become saved instead of telling them what theyre doing wrong.
Dave,
The Bible says that the Holy Spirit “will guide them into all truth”. And “neither Flesh nor blood revealed it to you [Peter] but my Father in heaven.”
God teaches me as IMMEDIATELY and DIRECTLY as any of your false teachers like Augustine can.
“He that believes has the witness in himself” — and this is the witness — that Christ has come and finished salvation for the Elect!! (1 Jn 5)
Andrew Bain
Ryan, you’re right — Dave may well die in his sins trusting in the Mass to”perpetuate the sacrifice of the cross throughout the ages” (Roman Catholic Catechism, section 1323)
And if Dave Hodges dies in that state, he’s a reprobate (someone determined from eternity to die and go to hell based on God’s free choice).
That would mean that God has used his contact with me to harden him in his sin. This is what the Bible refers to when it says, “He will harden whom he hardens.” (Romans 9) And that’s why God told Isaiah to go “Make the people’s hearts fat.”
Nevertheless, “TODAY, whilst it is still called today, if you hear His voice, HARDEN NOT YOUR HEARTS”
Andrew Bain
who the hell are you?
I’m not interested in why you are not Catholic. You’ll have my prayers. Goodbye.
Andrew, you are truly, truly insane. In all seriousness, you are. You act more and more ridiculous every day. It’s at a point where it’s now amusing.
Nor am I interested in why you are not a Romanist and I’d also appreciate it if you refrain from using such vocabulary. It’s derogatory. As for me, I can give you all the reasons I left Calvinism, but I see no point. Perhaps it would be better to focus your energy on people who haven’t even heard of the name “Jesus”. Just a thought.
My friend, do you see what you have accomplished? You are creating enemies; people are looking at you as a fool. How does that represent the Gospel, or even Jesus Christ? I once thought–as you do–that if people believe wrongly, they must be set right. And if they turn from my message it’s because they’re not ready to hear it. But I was asked this:
My friend, do you see what you’ve done to your witness? Have you not condemned your brothers and sisters in Christ? Have you not condemned the lost? Is this the image of Christ you wish to portray? An ambassador of Jesus who instead of seeking to save the lost (as Jesus said He’d come to do), you condemn them?
Is this not what the unbeliever sees; a man who tears down in harsh words his brothers and sisters? The comments of many of the others are just as harmful. Jesus said a house divide against itself cannot stand.
Does not the Word of God tell us to always be ready to give a reason for our hope, speaking with all graciousness? Did not David say of God, “your gentleness has made me great?” I ask you to humbly look upon your witness to the world. God promised to build His Church, why do you take the task into your own hands? Instead, why do you not submit to Jesus’ command to go to the unbelieving world and witness to the great mercy of God through Jesus?
Is this what you’ve striven to accomplish? Anger, harsh words, and disunity? In this you have succeeded. Why not let your site become a place of encouragement in the Lord, where brothers and sisters can come an rejoice in the work of our God?
“For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.”
Believe on the Lord Jesus and you will be saved…lets us share the gospel in love, for they will know we belong to Him by our love.
If this is not your desire, your goal, then all your preaching, my friend, is “vain discussion.” Please join the service of the King.